Nikon 1 system offers a 2.7 crop factor but the Sigma 150-500 doesn't work on it. The FT1 adapter gives you auto-focus (center point only) for any AF Nikon lens. (I know a guy who used the 300mm f/2.8 & the Nikon TC-20E III and turned is V1 into a 1620mm equivalent!)

The downside is that you will have manually focus non-Nikon lenses.

However, if you keep it all Micro Four Thirds, you will save money for other goodies (like the Panasonic 35-100 ƒ2.8) :smile:

All I can tell you is that I went for the Panasonic 100-300 and have never regretted the decision. Here's the very first shot I took with the lens. It was mounted on a Panasonic G1 and the image was taken handheld at 300mm. You may be able to make the jpg larger by clicking or tapping on it.

By the way, I also have a Pentax DSLR kit and had been considering a Sigma 150-500. The Sigma is a fine lens but it's heavy and costs $1000 new. The Panasonic 100-300 was half the money and much easier to carry around.

Thank you for your reply.
The 100-300 is a good option in my book, but I guess I am scared of it to be to slow to focus, especially on my E-PL2. Are my concerns valid?
Another option I thought about was picking up a Tamron 70-300 VC USD for my 350d. The 300 would be equivalent to 430mm. Might not be enough for wild life, but could start me there, as well as on plane spotting. The tamron cost 300 euros.

No matter what format lens you use on native or adaptive equipment the len's FOCAL LENGTH will always remain the same. Putting any lens onto a m4/3 WILL NOT double it focal length. A 100mm lens, remains a 100mm lens. The 2x crop factor refers to the portion of the projected image circle that strikes the sensor, half. Thus the Angle of View is narrowed by half. The portion of the circle 100mm has the same angle of view on m4/3 a 200 mm will have on a 35mm camera. The magnification level remains the same as a 100mm len on a 35mm lens. You do not see twice as far!

If you want to see twice as far, get a 2x telephoto converter adapter. Be aware that some are front mounts and must be the same diameter as the camera's filter ring. However, many fit behind the lens with the male and female mounts of the camera/lens system. It has an aperture ring which will be used rather than the lens' aperture ring.

If you do this on a m4/3 get an m4/3 lens with image stabilization. Long lenses will probably will require a tripod.

Where did he mention seeing twice as far? Which is incorrect any way. All lenses see the same distance from the same position. Point a camera at the moon and all lenses will see it. The longer lens gives more magnification, that is all. As does adding a tele-converter. That affects the angle of view, just like using a smaller sensor does. But you can still only see the same distance.

The OP used the term crop factor to compare the end result produced by two different sensor sizes. I though he was quite articulate in describing his needs.

As for the original question, I've owned both. If I did it again I'd personally choose the Panasonic or Oly. Optically they're close. But with the difference in price you could almost add a GH2 or G3 to the mix, although the focusing at distance with the EPL2 is just fine. Of course the ratio is different so if you're looking for 3:2 then you'll need an APSC camera or a GH2.

Where did he mention seeing twice as far? Which is incorrect any way. All lenses see the same distance from the same position. Point a camera at the moon and all lenses will see it. The longer lens gives more magnification, that is all. As does adding a tele-converter. That affects the angle of view, just like using a smaller sensor does. But you can still only see the same distance.

The OP used the term crop factor to compare the end result produced by two different sensor sizes. I though he was quite articulate in describing his needs.

As for the original question, I've owned both. If I did it again I'd personally choose the Panasonic or Oly. Optically they're close. But with the difference in price you could almost add a GH2 or G3 to the mix, although the focusing at distance with the EPL2 is just fine. Of course the ratio is different so if you're looking for 3:2 then you'll need an APSC camera or a GH2.

Gordon

Click to expand...

Hello,

Thanks for the reply.
When you mean you've owned both, do you mean a DSLR setup and a m43 setup for wildlife and general long tele work?

Do you prefer the m43 setup?
Yes, for the price of the sigma 150-500, i could buy a G3 and a pany 100-300.
Does the G3 autofocus noticeable faster than the E-PL2?

I used the 50-500 with a Canon 50D, so similar in focal length to what you describe. I used the 100-300 with a GH2, G2 and EP2.

With the GH2 and G2, the 100-300 focused just as fast as the 50-500 on the 50D, in fact maybe a bit faster, so the G3 would be at least as good. The sharpness was about the same. Personally I thought the 50D had more dynamic range, but that's the camera, not the lens. I have limited experience with the G3 but I have used it a bit and I prefer the files from it to the GH2. The OMD with a 300mm would be a killer combo.

The Bigma is a fine lens, but it's usability can't compare to the m4/3 lenses. It is huge. It is heavy and it is cumbersome. The filters are ridiculous sizees. If you're working off a tripod then the heavier lens is a good thing. If you're hiking with it, not so much. I loved my Bigma but I don't miss it now it's gone. The usability of the mirrorless cameras is too good.

I just feel that a G3/100-300 combo is going to out perform a 350d with the Sigma in every way. If you had a 7D or a D7000 that decision would be more difficult. As it stands now, if I were doing an extended trip or serious wildlife work a G3 or OMD with a 100-300 would be at the top of my list and an easy winner over a 350D and Sigma combo.

Just keep in mind, that although it's relatively small it's still a huge magnification, so even with IS, you'll need good technique to get the best out of it.

I have the Sigma 50-500 (aka Bigma) which I've used with my dSLRs. I think the resolution between the 150-500 and 50-500 are pretty close. I found the 50-500 to be barely acceptable in the sharpness category. I also own the Pany 100-300, I've only used it once, but I think it is a sharper lens. Right now you're sorta in at the fork in the road ... now is as good a time as any to choose between mirror-less or dSLR.

I have both the 100-300 and an E-PL2 - it focuses fast and produces beautiful photos, great contrast and bright colors. I recently shot a disc golf tournament with this combo and got some great shots. The lens is rather large and heavy, but I imagine the Sigma is even larger.

I have the older Sigma 50-500 with a variety of Canon DSLR's and the Panny 100-300 on a GH2.

There's no perfect solution here, a long tele works best on a camera with a EVF and the 100-300 doesn't have a tripod mount either, so it's going to be a bit awkward for wildlife on the EPL2 unless you get the VF.

The 350D isn't all that fast in the AF dept, but you'll at least be able to track a subject in AI-Servo. A EF400/5.6 would be a better solution, very fast on AF, and superb IQ. My two 50-500's have been pretty good to me, but they are heavy and sample variance has been an issue with these lenses.

The 150-500 is a beast of a lens - large, heavy, ungainly and I was less than impressed with focus speed and optical quality at 500mm in my admittedly brief tests. I ended up getting the Canon 100-400, which is a great lens, smaller and I prefer the handling. But it's still nowhere near the sharpest in the stable, and it's still big and heavy.

I would get the 100-300 - you will get more pixels on your subject (the whole focal length equivalence thing is somewhat academic - yes, perspective and compression are different than on a true 600mm lens, but you're still getting more pixels on your subject with the 100-300 on a 12mpix cam than with the 350D)

Thank you all for the replies!
I've been browsing flickr and some other forums and blogs, and I am almost set for the 100-300 panasonic.
It's easy to get on the gear hype bandwagon again... And think about buying this and that and in the future buy that and upgrade that...
But in the end of the day, it is all about the basics... It is all about taking pictures. About picking up the camera and go out there to take pictures and have fun!
So, I must not forget why I sold my 5D in the first place...
It doesn't matter how good the camera or lenses are if they stay on the shelf...

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.